It’s been more than 10 months since Canadians got a close look at the federal finances in last fall’s economic statement. At that time, they learned the deficit for the 2023–24 fiscal year had ballooned by over 50 per cent.

Now, as the Carney government prepares to table its first fiscal blueprint, there’s talk once again of rising spending and soaring deficits. A recent Desjardins forecast estimated the deficit for the current fiscal year could exceed $70 billion. That’s a more than 65 per cent increase from what was forecast in Fall Economic Statement 2024. This news comes amid government promises for “generational investments” but also a request to ministers to find “ambitious savings.”

So, what should Canadians be watching for in the November budget? And, more importantly, as billions of dollars continue to flow from federal coffers, are parliamentarians well positioned to give this spending the scrutiny they’re meant to deliver on behalf of Canadians under our Westminster system?

To discuss this, former parliamentary budget officer Yves Giroux joins Inside Policy Talks. Giroux served seven years as PBO, finishing his term just last month.

On the podcast, he tells Ian Campbell, digital editor at MLI, that it's less important which fiscal anchor the government chooses, but simply that it picks one and sticks to it over a period of time. With many forecasts predicting that Ottawa is set to drop yet another one of its fiscal anchors – this time, a declining debt-to-GDP ratio – Giroux says this "erodes the confidence of financial markets in the seriousness or the control that the government has over its own finances."

Campbell and Giroux also discussed a number of long-standing issues with the federal fiscal cycle that make it difficult for parliamentarians to exercise a high degree of scrutiny over government spending. Giroux said with only two people in Ottawa holding real sway over what ends up in the budget – the prime minister and finance minister – it's vital to make improvements to the fiscal cycle so parliamentarians can exercise a greater degree of oversight in this process.

Rare diseases affect only a small number of Canadians, but a lack of adequate testing and treatment reveals some of the key weaknesses in our health care system.

These illnesses – which affect about one in 12 Canadians – raise hard questions about health care costs, access, and fairness, and test how well Canada’s fragmented health governance systems can adapt to new challenges.

For a closer look at Canadian rare disease policy, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow John Adams joins Inside Policy Talks. Adams is a management consultant and one of Canada’s leading advocates for patients with rare diseases. Adams is the co-founder of CanPKU and chair of the Best Medicines Coalition, which represents millions of Canadian patients. His personal journey as a parent and caregiver for his son, who has a rare disease, has left Adams with unique insights on drug access, rare disease policy, and health care reform.

On the podcast, he tells host Shawn Whatley, a physician and senior fellow at MLI, that one of the key steps Canada could take to better serve patients with rare diseases is passing an orphan drug law like the one that exists in the United States. These laws incentivize the development of new drugs for rare diseases that are otherwise unprofitable due to small patient populations.

There's rapid change happening in Middle East In a ceremonial show of unity, world leaders headed to Egypt for an Oct. 13 peace summit in support of United States President Donald Trump’s plan to end the war in Gaza. All living hostages have been returned to Israel, though Jerusalem is still working to secure the release of some deceased hostages. It's been a historic week, but questions remain about the future of Hamas, and what it will take to deliver long-term security in the region. To discuss what happens next, Andrew Fox joins Inside Policy Talks. Fox served 16 years in the British Army, completed three tours in Afghanistan, and further tours of Bosnia, Northern Ireland, and the Middle East. A prominent expert on the Israel-Hamas war, Fox was a senior lecturer at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. He is currently an associate fellow at the Henry Jackson Society and an associate fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security. On the podcast, he tells Casey Babb, who leads the Macdonald-Laurier Institute's Promised Land project, that it's difficult to gauge what level of support Hamas retains in Gaza. However, he says the deeply rooted ideaology of "Palestinianism" will remain a problem in any scenario. "This idea of the from the river to the sea – it's not about having your independent Gaza Strip or your independent West Bank and a Palestinian polity," says Fox. "It's about getting rid of Israel and replacing it with this brand new country called Palestine that's never existed before." "I would suggest that's got a near 100 per cent approval rating across the Palestinian territories."

With the Canada-United States relationship at an all-time low, China has moved quickly to position itself as a beneficiary of the fallout. Canadians should be wary. Beijing is seeking to court Canadians with trade deals. But it is simultaneously punishing Canada for adopting anti-Chinese trade laws, which – as the Chinese are quick to point out – were implemented by Canada in response to American pressure to crack down on unfair Chinese trade practices. Now, we’re seeing growing numbers of Canadians twisting the logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” They’re taking this to mean that the enemy of Canada is the United States, and by that logic, the People’s Republic of China must be Canada's friend. To offer his perspective on how Canadians should view these developments, Dr. Stephen Nagy joins Inside Policy Talks. Nagy is a professor at Tokyo’s International Christian University, and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. He’s studied and written extensively about China and its influence operations in the West. On the podcast, he tells Jamie Tronnes, executive director of the Center for North American Prosperity and Security (CNAPS), that the Chinese government has "invested very heavily" in a strategy of "elite capture" focused on political and business leaders, "giving them preferred access to the Chinese market." "This is to lock them into a kind of dependent relationship," says Nagy. "And I think that this has made Canada have tremendous challenges in terms of confronting a country that really wants to change the global order in a way that is contrary to Canadian interests."

Constitutional law is often seen as the domain of courts and legal scholars, but one provision—the notwithstanding clause—has become a flashpoint in Canada’s ongoing debate over the balance of power between legislatures and the judiciary.

Once a political safety valve that sealed the deal for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, section 33 is now at the center of a national conversation about who should have the final say on fundamental rights.

To unpack the history and stakes of this debate, Professor Geof Sigalet joins Peter Copeland to explain how the notwithstanding clause was born out of provincial insistence on preserving democratic self-government, and how its use has evolved in response to rising judicial activism and federal-provincial tensions.

Sigalet delves into the recent controversies surrounding Quebec’s Bill 21 and the federal government’s intervention, highlighting the clause’s role as both a shield for provincial autonomy and a lightning rod for national debate. 

As courts and governments clash over the limits of the notwithstanding clause, the future of Canada’s constitutional balance hangs in the balance.

We live in a time of mounting cultural confusion. Social roles are in flux. Technology fragments our attention. And the idea of human nature itself is up for debate.

Beneath our daily political debates lies a deeper crisis: a broken picture of the basic elements of the world and our place in it.

Are we just collections of small parts, infinitely malleable and divisible – ‘meat lego’, as our guest would call it – ready to be arranged and rearranged through technology in the pursuit of individual aims, and all aspects of life commodified in the pursuit? Or, are we more embodied and interdependent than we like to think?

Until we grapple with some basic questions about the worldviews animating our lives – like how we see the role of individuals and their connections and responsibilities to the broader society – many of our most important political debates—from gender to productivity, family to freedom—will keep missing the mark.

To offer her perspective on these issues, Mary Harrington joins Inside Policy Talks. Harrington is a columnist at UnHerd and the author of Feminism Against Progress. She's one of the most incisive voices challenging core aspects of the dominant modern western worldview – from its assumptions about autonomy and equality, to its blind spots around embodiment, gender, and the limits of technology.

On the podcast, she tells Peter Copeland, deputy director of domestic policy at MLI, that despite the fact that most women become mothers, woman are told that "the core sort of desiderata of feminism are a set of aspirations which ... conceptually exclude this whole domain of experience." She said that led her to "questioning the idea of liberal individualism," including "the feminist difficulties with it" and "how well it fits with being a physically embodied person."

For decades, we’ve been told that freedom means throwing off restraint. But what if the sexual revolution didn’t liberate us, and instead left us lonelier, unhappier, and adrift?

Our culture’s promises of autonomy and self-creation have left young people disconnected from family, tradition, and purpose. We’re missing something deeper – about what it means to love, belong, and build a life that lasts.

To explore this, journalist Louise Perry joins Inside Policy Talks. Perry is the author of the bestselling book The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, which presents a bold challenge to modern sexual ethics. She’s also the host of the Maiden Mother Matriarch podcast, and co-founder of The Other Half, a think tank focused on pro-woman, pro-family policy.

On the podcast, she tells Peter Copeland, deputy director of domestic policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, she discusses a “key historical claim” that progressivism makes about the “shape of history.” It’s been argued that “history is linear and has just got better,” says Perry, but now it’s time to challenge “this belief that the sexual revolution was obviously good.”

Multiculturalism has been a policy and a political ideal for over 50 years in Canada. It’s shaped our immigration system, institutions, and the way Canadians see themselves.

Yet its meaning has shifted dramatically since then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau introduced it. It began as a national unity strategy. But for many, it’s become a slogan about diversity for its own sake. That’s left us divided about what it means to be Canadian.

The stakes are high. Immigration, national identity, and multiculturalism affect social cohesion, political stability, and our capacity to share a common civic culture. These aren’t just matters for an academic debate. They’re at the heart of Canada’s future.

To dig into this, Geoff Russ and Michael Bonner join Inside Policy Talks. Russ is a journalist whose recent writing for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute examines how Canadian history, symbols, and traditions shape who we are today. Bonner is a historian, former Ontario government policy director, and the author of In Defense of Civilization. He’s recently written for MLI on multiculturalism's origins, evolution, and current challenges.

On the podcast, Bonner tells Peter Copeland, director of domestic policy at MLI, that Canada needs to focus on unity, and that spending more energy focusing on the differences among the people who live in the country is “not what the present moment calls for.” Russ adds that while he believes in welcoming people from around the world, he cautions against importing social and cultural values, as these risk disrupting Canadian values and democratic institutions.

“If you look at the way that democracy has gone since the end of the cold war, democracy is proving to be very much a cultural feature,” says Russ.

Canadian culture is at a crossroads. For over 70 years, Canada's arts and media funding framework has remained largely unchanged, even as the country has become more diverse, more digital, and more disconnected from a unifying cultural vision.

Canada now faces a patchwork system riddled with duplication, inefficiency, and uncertainty of purpose – from the CBC to the CRTC, and from municipal arts grants to federal media funds. As geopolitical pressures rise and American cultural dominance intensifies, the stakes have never been higher when it comes to maintaining a strong Canadian culture.

To discuss this, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow Peter Menzies – a former CRTC vice-chair and past publisher of the Calgary Herald – joins Inside Policy Talks. Menzies is the author of a new paper, titled Rethinking arts and media funding: A new vision for Canada. In it, he calls for a Massey Commission 2.0 — a bold rethink of how Canada supports its creators, institutions, and cultural sovereignty.

On the podcast, he tells Peter Copeland, deputy director of domestic policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, that the idea of multiculturalism "has been confused," and that he hopes to see a future Canadian cultural policy that "takes pride in our foundations."

"There's one thing to be multiracial, multi-ethnic, welcome people from all countries and backgrounds," says Menzies. "But you also need to have a shared sense of identity."